Supporting Green Technology as a Patriot (and wanna be capitalist)
A wave of Green Technology innovation is sweeping the world – is the United States willing, and ready, to lead?
That was the question that Andrea Larson presented to the audience a couple hours ago at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I was a bit disappointed in most of her comments – beginning with the fact that she chose dwell on “the ignorance” of those that don’t believe in Global Warming… please!
There is nothing less important about this issue than fighting to convince those that don’t believe in it (Peyton speaks about the argument well – I welcome you to join that ongoing discussion).
Simply put, my favorite class in business school was negotiation – and if your aim is deriving policy that you think is going to effectively push renewables and reduce emissions, why fight about your belief structure, change the frame! (ie, don’t be silly, just give those that don’t believe in climate change – or that too much carbon in the atmosphere will likely have some detrimental effects – the Woolsey argument and they’ll write the policy for you).
While Professor Larson’s talk was not all together that compelling* I had serious concerns with one point in particular, as a citizen of the United States and as a tax payer. She discussed the need to stimulate demand for sustainable products while also pushing for innovation, but she did not think products necessarily needed to be made in the US.
I pose the question to you all… should we be content to only stimulate demand for the use of clean tech without stimulating the demand to produce the products we need an could one day export? I think the opportunity exists, like never before, to use our combined 50 states worth of demand to achieve rapid adoption through economies of scale, stimulate job creation and subsequent innovation while becoming the World’s supplier of clean technology solutions.
Frankly, I’m very afraid about transferring the torch of geopolitical power from one group of energy providers OPEC Nations** and Russia to another group*** of thus far benign but potentially hostile nations, but I think the graver long term concern is that the US fails to produce something that can right its trade imbalance.
Nothing is more empowering than self reliance (I encourage you to read Emerson’s take if you are so inclined) and I’m very afraid that if we are not careful, we will stimulate other countries’ production capacity, and let them achieve the economies of scale and subsequent bargaining power. My question to you all, can I claim to be some weird freakish hybrid free market capitalist if I want to explore using policy to stimulate these things twice – through an RPS and placing a cost on externalities (to stimulate local demand of sustainable technologies) and imposing some sort of a quota (that would stimulate local production of these products)?
As a tax payer investing heavily in renewables and clean tech (north of $90Bn) I think it makes sense for me to want to invest in the supply chain – because I can justify these as infrastructure investments, and I want to do that through tax incentives and quotas… to make sure that the ARRA stamp has a resounding multiplier effect on our economy.
Would Milton Friedman still talk to me? Am I being too patriotic? Am I a protectionist? Am I being anti global? Is the UN going to yell at me? Am I ignoring the maxims of comparative advantage? Will the WTO send me death threats?
** Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela
*** China is in a position to dominate the supply chain of Solar
|Tags: Andrea Larson ARRA Bradford Delong green technology Milton Freedman Milton Friedman OPEC Peter Klelow Peyton Renewable Energy SIEPR Stanford stimulus Woolsey||[ Permalink ]|